Park effects are essentially calculated by comparing a team’s runs scored at home and on the road, a team’s OPPONENT’S runs scored and on the road, over a period of years and determining how much the home park depresses or inflates offense. You can do it for one year but it’s best to look at it over a few years to make sure one year wasn’t just a fluke. In most cases a park’s effect isn’t that big, but some parks do have a pretty substantial impact.
To use an example because it happens to be a relevant and really good one, the Astrodome had a remarkable effect on offense during Nolan Ryan’s career. From 1980 (his first year there) to 1986, the Astros and their opponents consistently scored 12-18% fewer runs in the Astrodome as they did in road games. In 1987, IIRC, they moved the fences in a little, and the effect became less pronounced, although it was still there. The Astrodome WAS a tough place to hit; the ball didn’t travel well, the fences were really deep, and the place had sucky lighting.
Today we have Coors Field, which is unquestionably the greatest hitter’s park in modern history; the park inflates offense by 40-50% or more.
Parks affect offense by:
Fence depth. Some parks have very deep fences, like Yankee Stadium, which despite the short foul lines has really deep power alleys; others have shallow fences, like Fenway’s Monster. This has an obvious impact on home runs, although deep fences can increase base hits and triples by spreading the outfielders out a little more.
Altitude. Altitude above sea level gives a flying object more oomph, as Bob Beamon can tell you. Parks at altitude - Coors Field being an extreme example - give your fly balls a little more travel. Parks at sea level, like Dodger Stadium, don’t. You will find that almost all parks at sea level are neutral-to-poor hitters’ parks.
Weather. When the wind blows out at Wrigley, look out.
Foul territory. Parks with a lot of foul territory, like Oakland’s stadium (whatever the hell they call it now) are bad for hitters because they’re likelier to foul out. Parks without so much foul territory, like the Skydome, give hitters more second chances.
Hitting background. Most parks have dark hitting backgrounds now but it didn’t used to be always so. (How’s that for crappy grammar?) Some parks, like Stade Olympique in Montreal and Shea Stadium in NY, have poor lighting that seems to affect hitters as well.
Turf. Turf can affect offense a number of ways; it can slow grounders down or speed them up, for instance. Bouncy artificial turf like in the Metrodome can create a lot of extra doubles. A poor, rough infield can increase errors, too - this used to be a problem in Oakland, although I don’t know if it is anymore.
Now, if the statistics on HRs and hits are available, it should be possible to find out just what effect the dimensions of the playing field had on scoring and on Nolan Ryan’s career as an Astro. Also, if you’re curious, the dimensions of Enron field:
I attended one of the last games played in the Astrodome in 1999. The lighting was terrible. I took a photograph inside that did not turn out well. The next season, I attended one of the first games played at Enron and, during a night game with the roof closed (Enron has HUGE windows beyond left field when the roof is closed), took several photographs inside that turned out extremely well, using the same type of camera and film. Enron definitely has superior lighting.
The other thing I noticed was that the air inside the Astrodome was quite humid in spite of the air conditioning (though it was still far less humid than the air outside). It was definitely less humid in Enron Field. Balls fly further in dry air than in humid air, right?
Agreed. You cannot really compare Ryan and Carlton that year because they played in different leagues, although that’s just what I am attempting to do. What I am trying to say is that even in Carlton’s best year, Ryan was right there among his counterparts. He was 7th in ERA, 1st in SO, 1st in Shutouts, 1st in Hits/9IP, 3rd in complete games and 6th in innings. Was he the best in his league that year? Maybe not, but he was certainly right up there.
Look at it another way – each man made the top 10 in ERA for their respective leagues 8 times. Add up the total number of their “places”, and Carlton comes to 40. Ryan comes to 34. So Ryan averaged a higher placement in the top 10 of ERA.
My fault. I meant to say “the reason you only see adjustments…” instead of “the only reason you see adjustments…” I blame the lateness of the hour and the alcohol. Anyway, I’m trying to claim that the other adjustments would be made if the data were available and someone could derive a pertinent equation.
And I’ll tell you what was way above average about Mike Schmidt. The time he smashed one off the speaker hanging from the ceiling of the Astrodome. It has been estimated that ball would have landed over 600 feet from home plate. Unfuckinbelievable. It was ruled a double, which made no sense whatsoever. I still laugh when I think of it.
IzzyR, don’t abandon me so quickly!! As I showed earlier, Ryan’s career ERA+ was 111, while Carlton’s was 115, and these numbers include park adjustments. So Ryan’s career ERA is practically equal to Carlton’s even after adjustment.
As a parting shot, let me state my opinion that if you polled a significant number of batters who faced both pitchers, my money says the majority would rather face Carlton than Ryan. And that just may be the ultimate test.
I wouldn’t worry too much about me. You are doing a far better and more comprehensive job defending your position on your own.
But my thinking goes something like this. I don’t think the supporting ofense is at all part of the performance of a pitcher, and don’t think the greatness of a pitcher should depend on this. So to the extent that two pitchers differ in WL record based solely on their team’s offenses, I would consider them equal. But there are other reasons that may account for two pitchers having different WL records and identical ERAs. Most notably, some pitchers are more consistent. One might pitch a solid game 8 out of 10 starts and the other two mediocre, while the other pitches overpoweringly brilliant in 6 out of 10 and the other 4 mediocre or worse. In such an instance, the first pitcher may well have a better WL record - and deserve it - even if the ERAs are the same (due to the greatness of the performance of the other in the 60% that he pitches well). There is evidence to suggest that Carlton and Ryan may differ in this manner because, as you’ve noted, Ryan has all the no-hitters. But I remembered that the Astros and Angels were weak hitting teams, and was more inclined to attribute the difference in WL record to this, and give Ryan the edge. But if indeed the parks were pitcher’s parks, then it may be that the Astros and Angels were not weak offensive teams after all - they were simply hitting in bad offensive parks, even as Ryan was pitching in bad offensive parks. So this calls into question the notion that the difference in WL record is solely due to factors beyond the control of the pitcher.
Which is not to say that I am now convinced that Carlton was better. I have not betrayed you to that extent. I am merely noting that my earlier reasoning was flawed, so I retract my statements and withdraw from the field, leaving the floor to others who are treating the subject more thoroughly than I was.
It was ruled a SINGLE. The ball was in play and he didn’t make it to second.
That’s what happens when you have no ground rules for stuff like that. Devon White did the same thing in the Kingdome back when he was with the Blue Jays, ripping what appeared to be the home run of the century off a speaker and ending up with a single. He was so shocked, they picked him off during the next at bat.
Mike Schmidt was the best, though, my favourite ballplayer. Barry Bonds is going to pass him on the home run list soon, but let me point this out; Mike Schmidt won the home run title EIGHT TIMES. Eight times! Only Babe Ruth did better. When Mike Schmidt hit 48 home runs in 1980, he hit thirteen more than anyone else in the league. Nobody since has done that - you’d have to go back to Willie Mays to find someone who led the league in homers by that margin.
What was neat about him was his ability to hit homers to all fields. He hit as many homers the opposite way as he did pulling them, which I believe is pretty much unique to him among all-time home run greats. I saw him hit a home run against the Pirates that hit the opposite field foul pole that looked as if it had been fired out of an MRLS. It hit the pole halfway up and was still flying parallel to the ground. I’ve never seen anyone hit a ball the other way that hard, and don’t often see guys PULL them that hard. There was no way to pitch him. And he played defense like Brooks Robinson. And he did it EVERY YEAR. He had one off year in the middle of his career and it was a better year than most guys have. He was like a machine, year in year out, hitting home runs. Yes, Mike Schmidt could play some baseball.
Schmidt was also one of my favorite players, due to his exceptional abilities both offensively AND defensively. I didn’t get to witness his “speaker-shot” in person, but I did see him hit another home run at the Astrodome that appeared to be shot out of a cannon. Plus, he always seemed to be very close to winning the triple crown, which would be an incredible achievement in the modern era. IMO, there hasn’t been a superstar thirdbasemen since he retired.
Oh my. How truly shocking. I guess the Grand Conspiriacy must have broken down. Or maybe it just shifted focus and llobbed gopher balls at Barry Bonds instead.
:rolleyes:
I did watch – the Boston pitching staff was pitching as if for a Real Game[sup]TM[/sup] all along. And the Orioles were generally as suckful, but neither more nor less so, as they were throughout the season. If anything the Boston team decided to grant them the final dignity of going down fair and square. Cal’s last play was a throw to 1st that the Boston hitter beat.
Vinnie, thanks for letting us know who you consider an intelligent source. Even without your other posts, I now understand that you know exactly zero about baseball.
Howard Eskin and George Michael. My God.
Foe those of you in Chicago, think Mike North on WSCR, only not funny.
Yeah, why couldn’t they have done that earlier in the season, when it would have mattered? Well, actually, you’re referring to David Cone, who has been one of the few professionals on the Sox this year (which is why he won’t be back). Or maybe it was Urbina’s celebration at getting the last out with Cal on deck, and no chance for a final hit that would have made Vinnie bounce off the walls in indignation.
I was there for Cal’s second-to-last home game. The last pitch of the game (10th inning) was a 94 mph heater up the middle to Cal, with two outs, two on, and two runs down.
Cal flied out. I felt so bad for him, because it was like the stars had aligned just right, but he just couldn’t pull it off.
I live in Aberdeen, Maryland, hometown of Cal Ripken. Cal IS Aberdeen, seriously, the WELCOME TO ABERDEEN sign has ‘hometown of Cal Ripken’ written on it. Cal just recently funded a new minor league stadium for Aberdeen, as well as paying for a whole new stadium at our Highschool.
It isn’t really necessary to run down one player in order to build up another.
Gehrig wasn’t that complete a ballplayer. He was not a particularly good fielder and didn’t cover a lot of ground at first base. Second basemen Tony Lazzari and others covered a lot of the ground that Gehrig didn’t.
Just the same, Gehrig’s hitting ability would have made him a standout at any time. Unfortunately his ability in that area was overshadowed by Babe Ruth. Ruth, incidently, was a first class, all around player and when he was young could do just about anything in baseball.
What I am trying to say is that even in Carlton’s best year, Ryan was right there among his counterparts. He was 7th in ERA, 1st in SO, 1st in Shutouts, 1st in Hits/9IP, 3rd in complete games and 6th in innings. Was he the best in his league that year? Maybe not, but he was certainly right up there.